There are different views on the issue of treatment of status offenders. One group of specialists believe that status offenders need to be treated similarly to delinquents. This reasoning is based on the assumption that at-risk youth tend to have drug problems and are highly likely to become delinquents as they grow older. According to Siegel and Welsh (2010), adolescents, in contrast to adults, are more prone to risk-taking behavior, could be easily manipulated by peers, are more impulsive, and do not consider the long-term consequences of their actions. In addition to that, their ability to control themselves is significantly weaker than that of adults (Siegel and Welsh, 2010). Therefore, the only way to manage status offenders is to treat them as eventual delinquents and engage the juvenile court in controlling them.
However, the opponents of the view described above argue that delinquents should not be treated similarly to status offenders. Instead, the latter should be given a chance to return to normal life via the assistance provided by more secure correctional facilities. One of the examples that prove this argument was cited by Siegel and Welsh (2010). In spite of being homeless and addicted to methamphetamines, Aaliyah Parker has managed to defeat her drug addiction, graduate from school, and become employed (Siegel and Welsh, 2010). However, Aaliyah faced numerous difficulties in her search for support. The only things that helped her sustain all the troubles were the advocacy of her caseworker and the strength of her spirit (Siegel and Welsh, 2010). The case of Aaliyah illustrates that status offenders deserve a chance to change themselves, and prison could kill their intentions to become better people.
To conclude, I believe that it is necessary to establish different state agencies that would treat status offenders and delinquents separately. According to the definition, status offenders are adolescents who committed a noncriminal act, such as leaving home or using alcohol, or could not be controlled by their parents properly. Delinquents, in turn, are those who committed a crime. Undoubtedly, status offenders might become delinquents. Nonetheless, it is possible to prevent this transition by providing them with the attention, support, and treatment that they need.
It is mentally challenging to make a decision on what to do in the case of Shatiek Johnson. From one point of view, it is rational to waive Shatiek to the adult court because this boy has already become delinquent by killing several people. Without a doubt, Shatiek has had a difficult childhood, suffered from poverty and family problems. All these factors have a heavy imprint on his life. Nonetheless, by now, he has already killed three people, and if he did not stop after the first victim, he would keep on doing this. The case of Shatiek should be transferred to the adult court because he is accused of murder.
From another point of view, Shatiek is only 15 years old. In his past, he killed not for pleasure or fun but to save his life. For example, he killed a homeless man because he needed these $10. Since he did not rob or killed people on the street, his actions were caused by necessity, not by the craving for robbery and murder per se. From this perspective, the case of Shatiek should be retained in juvenile court because he is not an adult but an underaged victim of circumstances.
Being an ordinary person, I would like to retain Shatiek Johnson in juvenile court. During the hearing, he does not argue with the court or misbehaves. Instead, when one looks at him, it becomes clear that he got lost, and all the difficulties he experienced as a child led him astray. Still, at the position of a juvenile court judge, I insist on waiving Shatiek to the adult court because he is a serious juvenile offender with a history of three murders.
Reference
Siegel, L. J. & Welsh, B. C. (2010). Juvenile delinquency: The core (4th ed.). Wadsworth Cengage Learning.